State v. Stonaker
| Decision Date | 08 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 29964,29964 |
| Citation | 236 Ga. 1,222 S.E.2d 354 |
| Parties | The STATE v. Robert Maurice STONAKER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., Clarence L. Leathers, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, for appellant.
Paul S. Weiner, Jonesboro, for appellee.
We granted the State's application for a writ of certiorari to review the decision and judgment of the Court of Appeals in Stonaker v. State, 134 Ga.App. 123, 213 S.E.2d 506 (1975). The Court of Appeals reversed respondent's conviction for what it considered deficiencies in the charge of the trial court to the jury: The failure of the trial judge to charge the jury on a lesser offense to that offense delineated in the indictment, and the trial judge's failure to charge the jury on the subject of conflicting statements of the victim even though no such charge was requested in writing.
The indictment charged the respondent with child molestation: 'A person commits child molestation when he does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 14 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.' Code Ann. § 26-2019. The charge to the jury was complete and accurate with respect to this alleged crime.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence would also authorize a conviction on the lesser included crime of battery, and since the trial judge failed to charge the law with respect to the crime of battery, the charge was erroneous.
It has not heretofore been held by either of our appellate courts that the crime of battery is a lesser crime included in child molestation. Nor has it been heretofore held that a charge on battery must be given when the crime specified in the indictment is that of child molestation.
However, our purpose in granting the application for the writ in this case was to attempt to clarify for the trial courts what must be charged and what may be charged and what need not be charged in the area of lesser included crimes in criminal trials.
We now proceed to set forth the following rules in this area of the criminal law:
The trial judge must charge the jury on each crime specified in the indictment or accusation, unless the evidence does not warrant a conviction of such crime, or unless the State has affirmatively withdrawn a crime or stricken it from the indictment or accusation.
The trial also may, of his own volition and in his discretion, charge on a lesser crime of that included in the indictment or accusation. However, his failure to do so, without a written request by the State or the accused, is not error.
The State or the accused may, by written application to the trial judge at or before the close of the evidence, request him to charge on lesser crimes that are included in those set forth in the indictment or accusation, and his failure to so charge as requested, if the evidence warrants such requested charge or charges, shall be error.
An erroneous charge on a lesser crime to that set forth in the indictment or accusation does not rise to the level of reversible error, unless such charge was harmful to the accused as a matter of law.
By the establishment of these rules it is obvious that the decision of this court in Kerbo v. State, 230 Ga. 241, 196 S.E.2d 424 (1973) and similar rulings in other cases by this court and the Court of Appeals are overruled.
Under the facts of this case we hold that simple battery as defined in Chapter 26-13 of the Criminal Code of Georgia is not a lesser crime included in the crime of child molestation as defined in Chapter 26-20 (Sexual Offenses) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. It was therefore not error for the trial judge to fail to charge the jury on the crime of simple battery in this case.
The other ruling of the Court of Appeals relating to the failure of the trial judge to charge on the subject of conflicting statements without a written request to do so was also erroneous. In the absence of a written request for such a charge, it is not error for the trial judge to fail to charge the jury on the issue of conflicting statements made by a witness. The charge given by the court in this case was fair and complete, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prater v. State
...step toward the commission of the crime [ ]."). 12. Carter v. State, 263 Ga. 401, 403, 435 S.E.2d 42 (1993). 13. See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976); Williams v. The State, 185 Ga.App. 633, 634, 365 S.E.2d 491 14. State v. Warren, 133 Ga.App. 793, 213 S.E.2d 53 (1975)......
-
Miles v. State
...to be three parallel lines of authority that have been established in this area. Under the line established by State v. Stonaker , 236 Ga. 1, 2 (2), 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976), "[a] trial judge never errs in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense where there is no written requ......
-
Westbrook v. Zant
...where a criminal defendant could forfeit the right to challenge on appeal an unobjected to jury charge. See, e.g., State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976) (failure to charge on lesser included offense); Hill v. State, 237 Ga. 523, 228 S.E.2d 898 (1976) (induced error doctrine). ......
-
Powell v. State
...the jury on the law of sodomy and permitted the fact-finder to return a verdict on that included charge. In State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2, 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976), this Court set forth rules "to clarify for the trial courts what must be charged and what may be charged and what need not be c......